TBM 850

@eker A direct message from the developer for you... 'I wanted to make sure I replied to this thread while I was answering many of these posts with bugs and suggestions. Thank you so much for the positive feedback. As a one-man development team, I know that I cannot make THE best aircraft for MSFS alone, but I strive to create ones that spark a deep sense of joy in me as a real world pilot. I know that my way of doing things may not be for every simulator pilot, but there are definitely some out there whose taste will align with mine, and I hope they thoroughly enjoy my products. Thank you!' Thank you.

A reply direct from the developer... I have added an L:Var for the condition lever in the next update, though using a slightly different technique. It will be "L:BKSQ_ConditionLever, number" (0-2). Hope that's of some help.

@ape42 From the developer: 'This is a limitation of the Asobo rendering engine, unfortunately. Thank you for taking the time to write, though.' Hope that helps answer that for you.

From the developer... 'Fixed and ready for the update that's coming this week. Thank you! There will also be a very exciting surprise feature involving these static wicks in the next update. Shhhh...' Hope that helps

Message on this from the developer: 'Thank you for reminding me of my initial reaction of awe to this too! It had been so long since I programmed this that I had completely forgotten about it. Given that it's really so simple, I wonder why I've never seen a physical RMI or HSI unit equipped with a deviation bar. I'm glad my software could entertain you :)'

From the dev: 'I put the starter motor relay on the distribution bus now. Thank you for noticing that. I cannot find any scenario in which the light tests would work with the battery power off, though.' Hope that helps.

Yes to confirm, a message from the developer: 'This was actually caused by a single typo. I've fixed it for the next update, but if you want to fix it yourself, change the following line in the panel.xml file.' <NAME>GTN750</NAME> ---> <NAME>GTN750_INT</NAME> Hope that helps

This is fixed and ready for the update that will be heading your way, in this coming week. Thank you!

@nisx A reply from the dev for you: 'These symptoms are indicative of a GPS compatibility issue, usually caused by an outdated WT GNS package, or an incorrect PMS50 WTT compatibility package. Although these are not within my control, Just Flight's tech support has become quite adept at helping customers solve these problems so worth opening a ticket with them perhaps?' Hope that helps.

@marckc Here's a reply direct from the developer for you: 'Thanks for the feedback. I believe the right yaw was caused by an overly aggressive setting in the aerodynamics config that was intended by Asobo to "help" users with torque effects on takeoff, as the SDK suggests that this force is increased based on the assistance options. Since my users don't need any hand-holding, you won't see that behavior in the next update, which will be released very soon. The same goes for the elevator trim position, though that is nothing wrong with the aerodynamics, just the position of the indicator. Thank you!' Hope that helps.

@randolf Bleed switch in OFF should do it. That being said, you will get no AC that way as well. So, having cab.alt higher than cruise -- may be a better plan.

@tcarmona Thank you very much!

@randolf ah yes, my TAS was actually 320kt so that seems to be spot on. Never mind then

@thefly77 the circuit numbers and switches and commands are all listed in the xml file

When I have a tablet I never forget to load the plane with passengers and fuel. For some reason I do forget it when I have to use the menu. I would've like a tablet too, even if it has only basic features.

@dosmarder thanks, yep that's exactly the part that caught me. I think it makes sense for the manufacture to simplify the models differences and the certifications and training required. From my humble real-life C172 experience, even a modest diff of 160HP vs 180HP models can feel quite different, especially when torque and p-factor are at their fullest. As I understand, the goal was to focus on the cruise performance without dealing with the rest of the flight envelope. While I'm also a bit puzzled about the lack of 850 mode during takeoff ( and go-arounds!) , I guess they considered the available performance for T/O GA balanced, proven and well in the design goals. Another hint I've found, relies in the differences between the 850 and 900 where the 850 SHP made available for the entire flight regime. Here is an excerpt: "The new dorsal fin and a new torque limiter on the PT6A allow takeoffs at the engine’s fully flat-rated 850 shp instead of the 700 shp limitation in the earlier TBMs. " https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2014-07-01/pilot-report-daher-socata-tbm-900 My another hint also comes from the 850 POH, especially interesting to read is the restriction to use "850" during a go-around: GO--AROUND (2/2) If IAS is at or above 115 KIAS : 8 -- Flaps ................................................ UP In case of air leak between the solenoïd valve and the torque limiter, the available torque might be below 100 %. Consequently, it is strongly recommended not to select “850” : for a new approach or visual circuit for staying below 1500 ft AGL Just my guessing here, but it seems that the torque limiter is a sensitive point of failure and again in the balance of safety vs performance it is best to stay on 700SHP.. my interpretation anyways...

@HardCat55 Thank you for your reply. That's exactly what I thought. I often use spadnext to access the LVARs. But I haven't mastered writing scripts yet.